3 ms·

I think he's dismissing the 7% too readily - to me, the conclusion you can draw is that "if you don't have talent, you'll never be the best".

gammarator 15y ago
If you don't practice, it doesn't matter how much talent you have. Not only won't you be the best, you won't even be good. At least in the context of this study, amount of practice is the dominant term.
- matwood 15y ago
  If you don't practice, it doesn't matter how much talent you have. Exactly, greats don't just show up great. Carmack is considered great in the field of graphics programming, and if the Masters of Doom book is correct he is a mix of tons of talent and lots of practice.
throwaway21222 15y ago
For most purposes, being the best isn't necessary, only being good.
- inuhj 15y ago
  Agreed. You can make it pretty far on effort alone.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Very true. For some pretty far is good enough and it's where they're happy and want to be. However there are others who do strive for #1. I'm not talking about just generally as in how everyone wants to be the best but instead what I mean are those special few who need to take over the world and are meant to. Those people need that extra 7% but most of us don't.
xanados 15y ago
Very true. The result of this for people making strategic decisions regarding their lives is that if the field puts high value on positional factors, you should only engage in practice in that field if you have natural talent. For example, being in the 93rd percentile of basketball players (or startup founders) isn't going to make you millions of dollars (The value is in being better with respect to others, not with being good in absolute terms. Only one person gets to be the best.). But being in the 93rd percent of public equity investors will make you mightily rich.

3 ms·

I think he's dismissing the 7% too readily - to me, the conclusion you can draw is that "if you don't have talent, you'll never be the best".

by neutronicus 15y ago

gammarator 15y ago
If you don't practice, it doesn't matter how much talent you have. Not only won't you be the best, you won't even be good. At least in the context of this study, amount of practice is the dominant term.
- matwood 15y ago
  If you don't practice, it doesn't matter how much talent you have. Exactly, greats don't just show up great. Carmack is considered great in the field of graphics programming, and if the Masters of Doom book is correct he is a mix of tons of talent and lots of practice.
throwaway21222 15y ago
For most purposes, being the best isn't necessary, only being good.
- inuhj 15y ago
  Agreed. You can make it pretty far on effort alone.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Very true. For some pretty far is good enough and it's where they're happy and want to be. However there are others who do strive for #1. I'm not talking about just generally as in how everyone wants to be the best but instead what I mean are those special few who need to take over the world and are meant to. Those people need that extra 7% but most of us don't.
xanados 15y ago
Very true. The result of this for people making strategic decisions regarding their lives is that if the field puts high value on positional factors, you should only engage in practice in that field if you have natural talent. For example, being in the 93rd percentile of basketball players (or startup founders) isn't going to make you millions of dollars (The value is in being better with respect to others, not with being good in absolute terms. Only one person gets to be the best.). But being in the 93rd percent of public equity investors will make you mightily rich.